Talk:Crown of Immortality/Talk Archive 1

This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-02-25. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Please try to write in clearer English - I truly cannot understand some of the meanings of the text. For example the leading sentence contains not a single verb: The "Crown of Immortality" symbolized by the ring of stars, the ultimate salvation in Christian lore - but yet possibly transparent to religions in the modern interpretation as well as in its origin.
If I try to rephrase it I get the The "Crown of Immortality", which is depicted by a ring of stars, symbolizes the ultimate salvation in Christian lore^{[citation needed]}. The second part of the sentence may have all kinds of meanings This symbol (the Crown) is related to symbols in other religons; both in its modern form as well as in its origin or This symbol (the Crown) was originally copied from other religons; now in its modern form it has influence on other religions. Actually this both does not make sense. What did you mean, I truly cannot decipher that part of the sentence - and there are more lines like that. Arnoutf 08:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have just en-2 - Swedish by Origin. Good that guys like you can clean stuff put, then. That's the idea I guess. - Roberth Edberg 08:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that what you put in should be understandable, otherwise I cannot do anything with it. Can you please explain the section: "but yet possibly transparent to religions in the modern interpretation as well as in its origin." as I have no idea what that means. Arnoutf 10:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it completely to separate meaning from the crown itself, which I understand is a good thing. - Roberth Edberg 12:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

I put up the tag unreferenced again, as there are no references in this article (Please read WP:REF carefully). The article uses many wikilinks, but no true citations (the two website do not explicitly explain the CoI). These should be provided at one stage anyway, the tag may invite editors to provide them, also it warns readers that the information is not checked against the scientific literature. Please leave it on untill the problem is resolved. Arnoutf 12:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will do so, but remember that No one knows if it is Mona Lisa on the painting, yet we call it the Mona Lisa because Leonardo told us that it was the Mona Lisa. It's the same thing here. I do NOT like your argment, but I accept it. I have been to the Swedish House of Knights myself and read about the fresk and also talked to the personel there about it. It's no doubt that it's the "Crown of Immortality" as thats the name that the artist used. Still, It does NOT proove that it's the same circle on the EU Flag, but ITS not same thing as comparing with the movie Oceans Twelve. Roberth Edberg 12:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two PDF's published directly by the House of Knights:

In the English version you can read: "Eterna brings eternal life to the country" and in the Swedish version: "Eterna, Evigheten håller upp odödlighetens stjärnekrona". If you translate the Swedish line you get: "Eterna, Eternity holds upp the star Crown of Immortality". It's interesting why the English version does not include how, Eterna, brings eternal life to the Country when the Swedish version do. But, yet, there it is... 129.178.88.68 13:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like promising sources. Please implement them.

The painting is called Mona Lisa yet nobody claims the depicted lady is actually Mona Lisa; the painting called Nightwatch is no longer considered to depict a night watch either. That is because there are scholarly sources that have written about it and researched the issue and came up with conclusions. These conclusions do not come from people visiting the Louvre or Rijksmuseum themselves but through serious investigation.

Even so you go beyond looking at the painting itself but start adding symbolic meaning to something else altogether (e.g. you could read the Night watch as meaning that during Rembrandts age girls were in the military (there is a girl in the picture). THAT interpretation needs a bit more support then just the observation that there is a girl in a picture with armed men.

Summarised again - Nobody denies the existence of the crown in some paintings. However, any speculations beyond that need to be supported by published scholarly sources. Like it or not, that is wikipedia standard. If you want to start a story without references, you are free to build your own website outside wiki. Arnoutf 13:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Structure

Hi guys; as I said before I know little of the crown. My problem is that I am not learning much from this article either (which I think should be its aim). My main problem is that the article seems to assume people know what the crown is. I would suggest to change the structure of article in the following way to provide better reading:

Intro section
What is the crown - Explain what it is, how it is depicted, which cults use it etcetera.
- Symbolic meanings of the crown - I think this would be best served as a subheader under what is the crown
History of the Crown - The current version can be used as template. However, important is to add (sourced) statements as to
1. When and where was the crown first referred to under its current name
2. How did it spread through early (and later) Christion societies.
Where to find the crown Interesting section; but should be secondary to what it is and its history; perhaps add subsections like: in literature; in architecture; in painting but that may develop later on
Similarities I would make 2 subsections
1. Symbols with similar meaning but different image
2. Symbols with similar appearance but different meaning (that would be the EU flag).
See also / Links
References and Notes Arnoutf 11:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion

Although I agree with some of the reasons given in the deletion motivation; there seems to be something called Crown of Immortality in the Christian arts. This article was created only 3 days ago by an unexperienced editor. If the creator acts quickly and start filling in the references and shapes up the article; I would object against the deletion.

However I agree that unfounded symbolism speculations on the EU talk page should stop. Arnoutf 12:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

???

OK; I get your point about the, In my eyes obvious, simulairity with the EU Flag. I haven't said anything about a conspiracy, that's your words. If you concider "Protected by Christian Values" conspirational, then well - I can't help you. I delete the EU Flag part and will continue to improve the article. - Roberth Edberg 14:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it to you "experienced guys" to get rid of the deletion tag. - Roberth Edberg 14:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I did not place the deletion tag; I am indeed not a fan of Christian mysticism but try not to cloud my judgement by that; if an article is well sourced, not speculative (indeed my objection about the EU flag) and otherwise of interest it should be allowed in Wiki. I removed the tag as this is clearly not an uncontested remvoal of the aricle. Improvements are needed however, otherwise the article might find itself in the WP:AFD procedure one of these days (mind you, not a threat; I won't nominate it, more of an incentive to get it right soon) Arnoutf 15:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx Arnoutf, I will clean up, guard and make the article better. I will add some pics from the House of Knights and intervju them again about the Crowns origin. - Roberth Edberg 16:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC) - (Forgot to logon) A popup if not logged on would be nice as it's possible to edit without beeing logged on...[reply]

Please do not add interviews, that is original research. Perhaps yoou may consider asking them where you can find a book about the crown and use that as source. PS: You should be able to check a 'remember me' box when logging on. Arnoutf 16:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on it. --Roberth Edberg 23:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinking

Now we are talking about improving. Just a tip. Dont overdo the wikilinks. In your most recent introduction you wikilinked ring, star, religious, art, and described (among others). However, the relevance of these wikilinks does not go beyond simple dictionary relevance. I took a fair number out and combined religious and art to a link to religious art (that is a relevant wikilink). As guiding principle, link only to relevant articles for the current article, don't wikilink every word. Arnoutf 20:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research

I'm concerned about the amount of Original Research I'm seeing. Of all the examples listed, only two are specifically called Crown of Immortality. There also seems to be an attempt to draw similarities to modern day flags that is totally unsupported by citations. CovenantD 20:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, the article is new and I will add more further on. If you scratch just on the surface, you will find that the ring of stars is out there. No-one doubt that. Thing is that it's seems to be very limited information about the ring (Crown). I guess we will find more as we dig deeper, in fact the stamp painting (fresk) is located in Drottningholm Castle (Were the Swedish King lives) and it's not the same one as the fresk in the Knights House. So there is actually three places at the moment. - Roberth Edberg 23:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make sure that you know what is meant with original research (or OR) please read WP:OR. Good luck Arnoutf 08:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, in this case published proof of the name of the Crown. For example a published painting/fresk description by the artist mentioning the crown by name. --Roberth Edberg 11:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crown of Twelve Stars

The correct term appears to be Crown of Twelve Stars. See Woman of the Apocalypse and the Bible, Revelation 12:1

And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars...

This does not alter the fact that the article is OR. Simply providing a source for the use of the name, is not a source for all that is said about it here.Paul111 12:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, The Bible does not name the crown, it just say a crown of Twelve stars. But artists have put a name on it for us and that's the Crown which this article is about. About the other stuff in the article, I'm working on it. Please be patient. --Roberth Edberg 12:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where to find the crown

There needs to be some documentation that these are called "Crowns of Immortality." Simply pointing out a halo or circle of stars and calling it a Crown of Immortality is not enough to satisfy Verifiability - you have to prove that a reliable source has called it that. CovenantD 09:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a artist, writer, poet calls a star circle Crown of Immortality in his work, isn't that enough? Then you already got your answer in the Source part and if google on it, you will find more. AND According to the initial description of the article there IS NO claim that all rings of stars by definition is the Biblic 12 star halo of virgin Mary, which I guess that you're questioning in your argument. --Roberth Edberg 11:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the creator of the work has called it such, then yes, I would accept that (with proper documentation). I would even allow a respected art critic or religious scholar who calls it such (again, with proper documentation). CovenantD 12:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they are not the Crown of Immortality, then they do not belong as examples in an article on the Crown of Immortality. Wikipedia's accuracy requirement also cover implicit claims, or the listing of items as something which they are not. Text and images not specifically identifiable as "Crown of Immortality" removed.Paul111 11:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the Edward Grim part again as it include the ...crown of Immortality... Paul111, this article is about the "Crown of Immortality" - a term named, described and used. If you know exatcly what the Crown is is, why not define it yourself, as you ax everything out. Or help us develop the article instead! --Roberth Edberg 12:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is about the phrase "Crown of Immortality" then the intro must be changed, since it identifies it as a religous synbol associated with the Virgin Mary.Paul111 12:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I changed the top description - which of course was the key as the description now is transparent and may list ANY art that include a star circle or crown, without any speculations. Good, thing. Thanks. --Roberth Edberg 12:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will merge "Where to find the Crown" with "Name Sources" and separate paintings, fresks and text sources. --Roberth Edberg 13:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New article

I moved the gallery to a new article called Circle of stars - a more general term, in accordance with Wikipedia naming guidelines. Anything useful from this article can probably be moved there.Paul111 18:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps create a section within that article about references as the Crown of Immortality, and turn this into a redirect? Either way, do you think that this article is documented enough now that the AfD could be withdrawn? I think all of the initial objections have been overcome, and the details of naming conventions aren't really the purpose of AfD. CovenantD 19:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a redirect to the more general article is the correct thing to do. However, during an AfD process, five days, Wikipedia:Guide to deletion says articles should not be merged or redirected. Paul111 11:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might have been more patient and wait untill after the AfD; that would have solved the issue. Arnoutf 12:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You personally can't halt the process, but you can request that it be withdrawn at the AfD page. I think that makes it a Wikipedia:Speedy keep]]. An admin will take a look at the comments, the article and the improvements and act accordingly. With all the work that's gone into it, it might be kept per WP:SNOW :) CovenantD 05:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iconography or wider

Is the crown only part of the religious arts, or is it something referred to in a broader context; for example a halo, is both an art icon and a representation of a glow of sanctity. Grims (recently removed phrase by Paul111) seems to refer to a broader use; outside the mere art use. The introduction however refers to it as strictly something in religious art. Please clarify Arnoutf 12:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, the description was unclear. In my words: ...,in religious art sometimes... I referred to any art, but also sometimes in religious art. I had another intro in my own version, which I now have pasted into this official one. Hope things are clearer now. --Roberth Edberg 13:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you are trying to say two things in a single sentence, don't try to make a single point in a single sentence.

Perhaps turn it around. "The Crown of Immortality is associated with the immortality of the Virgin Mary and some Saints in Christian culture. In religious art it is depicted as a circle of stars (often a crown, tiara, halo or aureola)."

Of course you have tailor the first line to the source, or to find a reference to support the first line, as that is now pure speculation on my side (more or less what I picked up from your previous edits). Arnoutf 13:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your idea would be interesting, but as the crown isn't always related to Virgin Mary or saints, then it won't work. The allegoric entity "Immortality" is of course neither a saint or Mary, for example. --Roberth Edberg 14:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will stear up the intro, in a few hours - have to leave now. --Roberth Edberg 14:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with immortality as an explanation of the crown of immortality is that the argument is circular. Who can receive the crown; if someone has the crown what does that imply. E.g. Could a great emperor like Charlemagne get it and become immortal, can a single peasant get it; is it some kind of badge of honour, if so for what; is it an allegory that a person has become immortal; if so in what sense, that of the Highlander? So my question (actually from day 1 of this article remains) what does this crowns meaning refer to? I still have no idea. Arnoutf 15:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as Eterna, Eternity, brings Immortality to the citizens of Sweden in one of the fresco descriptions - I guess it's a form of blessing or protection. Actually, we do not need to answer the question, as the article isn't about explaining it. Not, yet at least. --Roberth Edberg 16:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it IS a fairly essential question and probably important to focuss attention on; else we are only talking about a bunch of stars on some painting. Arnoutf 17:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and of course the knowledge of it's existance will encourage it. --Roberth Edberg 19:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "crown of Immortality" is, as its ghits demonstrate, a very common metaphor from at least the Later Antique period, when it usually refers to martytrs, as in :

"Monday, Nov. 15 8 p.m. 180 PLC Arthur Droge, professor of New Testament and Early Christian Literature at the University of California, San Diego, will speak on "The Crown of Immortality: Toward a Re-description of Christian Martyrdom." " from here [1].

I don't think there is any particular iconographic aspect to this - martyrs usually have a palm as their attribute. From I think the Renaissance the metaphor is given a secular side, as Shelley here: "Should the public judge that my composition is worthless, I shall indeed bow before the tribunal from which Milton received his crown of immortality..." [2] and it is presumably this that gives rise to the visual crown, but this is usually a laurel crown, from the classical models. You might also look at Ariadne as a possible origin for the crown of stars - see the Titian pic in the article (only 8 though). Johnbod 23:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iconographic or not, the Crown is still there and used, referensed etc. So Let's evolve this article. Meaning I guess will be the next step to find sources about. --Roberth Edberg 06:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logic of this article

The underlying message in this article seems to be something like this:

on some artworks a circle of stars is an allegorical representation of the Crown of Immortality
therefore, all circles of stars on any work of art, flag or seal are the Crown of Immortality
if any literary work mentions the "crown of immortality", then it is talking about a circle of stars
in some cases the circle of stars is a Christian symbol
therefore all circles of stars are Christian symbols of immortality

This is not what an encyclopedia is for - linkage of similar concepts to imply a logical connection.Paul111 11:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I object, you're talking about the Circle of stars article. This article does NOT relate all circles of stars in art to Immortality, only those who are. From a researcher point of view I think it's good to also have an article (Circle of stars) that collect circle of stars in art, no matter what meaning they have. --Roberth Edberg 11:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul111, that may have been an interpretation of the first version of the article. As it is now, I only see a list of references to situations in which the crown is mentioned. Arnoutf 13:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is this article about?

The intro text as of now says that the Crown of Immortality is a circle of stars, yet it included references to texts which do not mention a circle of stars. Is the Crown of Immortality a circle of stars, or not? If it is not, then other literary uses (as metaphor) should not be included.Paul111 16:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dealt with briefly in my contibution 2? sections up. I don't agree they should not be included, but the definition and development of the image/concept needs to be clearer, following research. Johnbod 16:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree mostly, but an allegory is methaporic art, which also literally works can be. If the work is related to the crown in text, even if the text does not mention stars - then, off course it should be accepted in the article. --Roberth Edberg 20:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]